Dept. of Human Services v. J. E.

── Dept. of Human Services v. J. E. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Egan Category: General No. 410 May 13, 2026 587 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of C. R. R. S., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. J. E., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 24JU01821; A188616 (Control) In the Matter of C. D. S., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. J. E., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 24JU01822; A188617 David J. Orr, Judge. Submitted March 19, 2026. G. Aron Perez-Selsky filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. EGAN, J. In Case No. A188616, affirmed. In Case No. A188617, affirmed. 588 Dept. of Human Services v. J. E. EGAN, J. Mother appeals judgments terminating her paren- tal rights to her children, R and D, who were six and five years old respectively at the time of the termination of parental rights trial.1 On appeal, mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s determinations regarding statutory grounds for termination or parental unfitness. She assigns error only to the court’s determination that terminating her parental rights is in the children’s best interests under ORS 419B.500. On de novo review, we affirm. Standard of Review. “We review the record in pro- ceedings for termination of parental rights de novo, ORS 19.415(3)(a), and determine anew whether to terminate parental rights,” Dept. of Human Services v. J. M. A., 333 Or App 334, 336, 554 P3d 263 (2024). Under that standard, and given mother’s arguments on appeal, we examine the record “with fresh eyes to determine whether the evidence developed below persuades us” that termination is in the child’s best interests. Dept. of Human Services v. K. T., 334 Or App 55, 62, 554 P3d 832, rev den, 372 Or 787 (2024). Although our review is de novo, we give considerable weight to demeanor-based credibility determinations made by the juvenile court because the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and evaluate their testimony first- hand. Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. B., 294 Or App 514, 516, 432 P3d 343 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019). Our role therefore is largely the same as the juvenile court in evaluating whether the record supports termination. Dept. of Human Services v. A. D. G., 314 Or App 290, 293, 499 P3d 139 (2021). Background. R was born in August 2019. D was born in June 2020. The children were taken into protective cus- tody in March 2022 following concerns regarding neglect, parental substance use, and exposure to domestic violence. At the time of removal, mother was in Arizona, where her four older children resided, and she remained there until early April 2022. 1 The appeals in Case No. A188616 and Case No. A188617 have been consol- idated only for purposes of opinion and otherwise remain separate cases. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 349 Or App 587 (2026) 589 The juvenile court took dependency jurisdiction in June 2022 based on both parents’ substance abuse, father’s mental health concerns, and the children’s exposure to a cha- otic and volatile home environment in which mother had been verbally abusive. The children were placed with the Jansens, who bec